1978 PLP 176 (PLC)
JAVAID AKHTAR Versus EXECUTIVE VICE‑PRESIDENT
| Citation | 1978 PLP 176 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IInd Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer Raja |
| Parties | JAVAID AKHTAR Versus EXECUTIVE VICE‑PRESIDENT |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 176 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 176 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IInd Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer Raja.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 176 (PLC) (JAVAID AKHTAR Versus EXECUTIVE VICE‑PRESIDENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Anwar for Appellant.
- Khawaja Farooq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Defence by accused‑No question put to accused whether be wanted to produce any defence‑Note recorded by Enquiry Officer that both sides agree that they had nothing to say, by way of evidence‑Such note though signed by accused, held, not sufficient in absence of clear question by Enquiry Officer to accused whether he wanted to produce defence.
Judgment & Decree
This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 12th December 1975, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi, on a petition made to that Court under section 25‑A for re‑instatement. Petition was rejected. Hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file of the Junior Labour Court, as well as the impugned order.
3. According to the respondent, appellant misappropriated certain' amounts of the respondent on different dates, when the authorities came to know of it they made the appellant to pay tack that amount. Enquiry was held by the bank for this misconduct and appellant was dismissed. Photo-state copy of the enquiry proceedings are on the file of the Junior Labour Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of the appellant. It is in the form of questions and answers. No question was put to the appellant as to whether he wanted to produce an defence. Simply there is a note by the Enquiry Officer. It is to the effect the both the sides agreed that they had nothing to say by way of evidence in uh domestic enquiry" and signatures of the appellant were obtained under the note. A clear question should have been put to him whether ha wanted t produce defence or riot.
4. In that view of the matter I set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court and direct the Management to give an opportunity of defence to the appellant and then come to a new finding in the light of that defence if any. Question of back wages would depend on the result of tire enquiry report.